1
Krichkov А., Shnaybel О. Mass and Useful Energy. – М.: Publishing House «Sputnik +», 2015. – 16 p.
ISBN 978-5-9973-3468-0
УДК 539.1 ББК 22.383
2
Krichkov A. Shnaуbel O. Mass and Useful Energy A physical system under standard atmospheric conditions possesses certain energy. One can observe the system energy increase or decrease over the specified time. But the system energy can’t be less than zero. Experiments to measure the integrated energy of various physical media were conducted based on this physical law. In addition experiment results are included to provide the ground for discussions on possible conversion of mass to usable energy. The methods of nuclear spectrometry and measurement of the substance physical mass were used for the research according to the general relativity theory physical principle of the mass and energy equivalence. Key words: low energy physics, mass, radiation, nuclear physics.
Part I The issue for consideration is - does the atmospheric air contain any energy. Near-surface atmospheric air carries radionuclides of earth origin, each radionuclide having its own energy and contributing to the integrated energy of the air. Radioactive gases and to some extent radionuclides from space also add to the integrated energy of near-surface air. Natural radioactivity of air fluctuates constantly therefore energy distributed in air does so. Air radioactivity is a microscopic energy share in the integrated energy. The energy fluctuations are influenced by meteorological conditions, seasons of the year, time of the day. Energy of the nearsurface air fluctuates continuously and doesn’t have constant value. If sets of spectrograms are collected in the open landscape and in the shielded room with filter for radioisotopes, one will clearly see the presence of radioactive substances in the air tested in the open area. And in the shielded room air the amount of radioactive substances is significantly lower due to the closed space and the radioisotope filtering. Regardless of that the air chemical composition is the same in both cases, and a human being can breathe both. Equipment: Canberra InSpector 1000 – digital scintillation gammaspectrometer, the Genie-2000 software, stabilized scintillation gamma detection unit with the NaI (TI) crystal. IPROS- 2. Every spectrogram was accumulated over the same amount of time. Picture № 1. Air spectrogram for the natural open area. 3
The next spectrogram was accumulated in the low background room with radioactive aerosol filtering in operation. Equipment: Canberra Industries, Inc. (USA) GC10021 detector with the DSA – 1000 pulse analyser and the Genie – 2000 (version V3.2.1) software, certified to the ISO-9001 standard. Picture № 2. Air spectrogram for the low background room.
Comparing these two spectrograms we can state that near-surface air contains more energy than does the air in the shielded room. The next experiment involved solid crystalline samples. The objective on the experiment was to register physical mass change over time. Time period selected was 3 years. 4
Equipment used: For mass measurements – the laboratory scale Sartorius GK 703-0CE (Germany). The scale is certified, calibrated by the Research Institute of the Legal Metrology Service. The major features of the scale used were the following: special precision class; resolution 0.0001g; built-in calibration; mean square error (MSE) after initial calibration and in operation 0.0001g. For radiation measurements – radiometer ИРД-02 with the following features: dose rate measurement range 0,10 – 100μSv/hr; photon energy range when measuring dose rate 0,04-3,0 MeV; sample source readings in the gamma mode (1,7 ± 0,1)μSv/hr; low energy threshold for detection of beta particles under 0,05 MeV; beta flux density measurement range 3-10000 1/(cm2.min.). The calibration certificate issued by Russian Research Institute for physical and radiation technical measurements. The experiment involved 5 samples of rock. The gemmology analysis stated that samples contained specific mineral with the chemical composition formula (K,Ba,Sr)(Ca,Na)2[Si4O10](OH,F)·H2O. Three samples were of higher intrinsic radioactivity due to inclusion of radioactive thorium in the form of (ThCaSi9O20) mineral. During the experiment each sample was in the hermetically sealed glass container. Containers were stored in the lead sealed compartment. The compartment was opened once a year for weighing. The room where compartment was located had the precision climate-control system. The readings for gamma and beta radiation provided were compensated for the background values. Table № 1. The changes of the solid crystalline sample masses.
№
Mass (g)
2011 ɣ radiation (μSv/hr)
1 2 3 4 5
105,2073 109,9740 103,1248 106,2722 76,4566
0,04 0,04 no no no
β Radiation (1/cm2.min.) 028 015 010 no no
2012 Mass (g)
2013 Mass (g)
2014 Mass (g)
105,1936 109,9739 103,1244 106,2698 76,4548
105,0927 109,8597 103,0252 106,1823 76,3935
105,0925 109,8519 103,0180 106,1809 76,3934
Delta Mass (g)
0,1148 0,1221 0,1068 0,0913 0,0632
Over the period of three years the mass of the radioactive samples had decreased by 0.1145 gram as an average. The physical mass of the samples without intrinsic radioactivity had decreased by 0.0772 as an average. 5
It was a known fact that radioactive substances emitted energy and decreased in mass in the decay process. What was not known that the non-radioactive substances also decreased in mass though not that fast. The loss of non-radioactive substance mass may be logically and consistently explained based on the general relativity theory of mass and energy equivalence. Energy stored in the crystalline bodies may be compared with a weak form of decay, which may supply energy of some level. Additional experiment was conducted with regular water. Water from the tap was filtered through a common filter. Water for the experiment was measured in the low background room to radioactivity characteristics to exclude the presence of energy intensive natural isotopes. Picture â„– 3. Water spectrogram.
Measurements performed showed that within the hardware resolution there were no radioactive isotopes in the water. Then the water was weighed. For the experiment the water was place into hermetically sealed container. Table â„– 2. Change of physical mass of water. Water Net mass (g)
Beginning 138,04
1 day 137,94
2 days 137,83
3 days 137,78
Delta 0,26
The experimental data gathered allowed to suppose that there is an energy change corresponding to a change of physical mass of water; however equipment is required to detect the changes of energy, conditions and events taking place in water medium. 6
Becquerel A., French physicist discovered the spontaneous radioactivity in 1896. As Rutherford E. and Soddy F. argued – “Radioactivity is an atomic phenomenon which is accompanied at the same by chemical changes resulting in appearance of new substances whereas these changes have to occur inside an atom and radioactive elements have to undergo the spontaneous transmutations” [1]. “The radioactive decay theory developed together by Rutherford E. and Soddy F. stated that radioactive element atoms were unstable unlike other atoms and spontaneously without any external impact transmuted finally into the stable isotopes of various elements. Therefor there is an obvious conclusion: there is a process of transmuting of one element into another in the nature. Rutherford E. used to call the science on such transmutations “a modern alchemy””[2]. Radioactivity results in following: detected emission, reducing physical mass of emitting substance over the time, appearance of new chemical substances. The first clause that the world around human beings was not stable was suggested in 1896. Over the time this world continuously changes and disappears. This observation is related to the radioactive substance. Is there a terminal particle of the decay? Higgs P., British physicist predicted the existence of the elementary particle, which accounts for inertial mass of elementary particles in the frame of the Standard Model of particle physics [3]. Starting from 1960 the group of physicists tried to explain the origin of elementary particle mass. In 2012 CERN declared Higgs boson discovered. There was an opinion that Higgs boson explained the origin of elementary particle mass. 2013 Nobel Prize in physics was awarded for that discovery. “The prize of this year has been dedicated to something very tiny which explains everything else in our universe”, — as was put by Normark S., Secretary of Sweden Royal Academy of Science [4]. But in 2014 further decay of Higgs boson into undetected particles was observed. ATLAS Collaboration Group using the Large Hadron Collider identified new limits for the decay probability of Higgs bosons created together with Z-bosons to the particles, which cannot be detected by existing instruments but carry away momentum and energy. [5]. Therefore sound evidence has been provided that even in high energy physics there are technical limitations for radiation energy detection. Lack of the technical capabilities does not prove the absence of new unknown particle and emissions. Results of recently conducted experiment allow supposing that the crystalline substances such as water and air possess energy of low level. This energy has such an order of magnitude that the modern detectors are not able to measure the integrated energy of natural non-radioactive substances due to limits of measurement method and instrument errors. For now such researches can be conducted only by mutually complementary methods: counting of detected particles with simultaneous weighing of test samples by laboratory scale. And the experiment conditions shall include the 7
adequate shielding from the background radiation and prevention of any chemical reactions. Nuclear physics provides evidence that not only radioactive isotopes can have isomers; there also can be isomers of stable nuclei. “These isomers are also stable nuclei and differ from the nuclei in the ground state only by small amount of internal energy and by large value of spin. … It can be noted that there may be a case when transition from one isomer to another is accompanied by no particle emission but only by mild gamma-radiation; such gamma-radiation is quite difficult to detect in an experiment” [6]. In 1929 Weyl H., German physicist raised the question – why we do not observe matter decaying all around us. In 1939 the same question was raised again by Stueckelberg E., Swiss physicist and in 1949 by Wigner E., American physicist. Assumptions of these scientists formed the general opinion that matter had got a constant characteristic, which was called a baryon number. Any assumptions of baryon number non-conservation contradicted the fact that regular non-radioactive matter was stable over the time. But on the other hand Weinberg S., American physicist, Nobel Prize winner wrote: “A baryon number was invented as an accounting tool to explain the absence of the observable proton decay and other similar decays; this number does not have any other sense” [7]. Decrease of physical mass of the test samples was registered in the course of above-mentioned experiments, but this mass change was not related to the proton decay that is generally considered to be directly connected with a baryon number, but to the energy emission by the tested substances. Processes which cause significant decrease of physical mass may be considered as energy sources. The larger mass defect is, the higher energy the substance possesses and vice versa. As experiments show not only radioactive substances possess energy but stable ones too. In 1928 Syrkin Ya., Soviet physical chemist wrote about this the following – “Mass of a body is a measure of its energy. The change of energy corresponds to the equivalent change of mass. Einstein A. wrote in his first work that the possibility of equation confirmation by an experiment was not excluded” [8]. Wilczek F. wrote in his Nobel lecture in 2004: “Standard method of writing the equation Е=mc2 indicates the possibility to gain large amount of energy at the expense of small mass. This is associated with nuclear reactors and bombs. Stated as m=E/c2, the same equation provides a possibility to explain the origin of mass in terms of energy… In fact it is the equation m=E/c2 that the original Einstein paper contains. And the title of this paper is: “Does the body inertia depend on its energy?” From the very beginning Einstein thought of mass origin not bombs. … Indeed the mass of regular substance consists almost entirely of energy – energy of massless gluons and almost massless quarks which are building blocks for protons, neutrons and consequently for atomic nuclei” [9]. 8
Further researches in the area of low energy physics of natural environment will provide benefits in the long run. The limitation of low threshold for mass defect of non-radioactive substances will be identified. This limitation will have three levels. Attaining of the first level of mass defect in experiment will correspond to significant change of ratio of stable isotope concentrations. Attaining of the second level will correspond to significant change of ratio of chemical elements. Attaining of the third level will correspond to the absence of substance or observer. The fact that the world around observed by a human being is filled with energy that this world continuously redistributes and emits energy is a physical phenomenon. It is possible to use natural radioactivity of the Earth crust, air and water in the power installations of new type. The experimental data identify these energy sources, which are practically inexhaustible in human perception.
Part II Potential energy sources were reviewed experimentally in the first part of the research. The question shall be asked – how to convert physical mass to energy. Long ago this question was raised for discussion by the academician Velikhov E. and prof. Letokhov V.: “The equation Е = mс2 is discussed. This interrelation shows only that mass is equivalent to energy but says nothing about how to convert mass to energy and moreover to usable energy. But the scientific progress logic is such that the correctly understood fragment of the universe model almost always opens new interesting application possibilities for humanity. So the Einstein conclusions on the interrelation of mass and energy, their application to the nuclear physics problems have lead to discovering the specific ways of nuclear reaction use” [10]. This is the issue to be considered. Controlled core area is required for the energy installations that use natural radioactivity of the environment. The controlled core has to possess one feature – control the radioactive decay under normal atmospheric conditions. Superdispersed mixture of stable isotopes was prepared for the experiment. The distinctive feature of the test substance was that the stable isotope concentration ratio had been changed without external irradiation. Accelerating and generating systems also were not used.
Table № 3. Sample analysis data. All values in ppm (10-4 %).
9
№
Element
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
С Na Mg Al Si S K Fe Mn
Sample before treatment 380 78 32 1,0 370 150 35 4,0 7,2
Sample after treatment 220 92 160 2,1 24 240 17 2,3 2,8
Analysis was performed by mass-spectrometry with glow discharge in the hollow cathode. Equipment: ICP analyser ELEMENT 2 mass-spectrometer. Sensitivity 104 pls/ppm. Mass-spectrometry is a physical method to measure the ratio of charged particle masses to their charges. Mass-spectrometry deals with substance particles and measures their masses, more precisely – ratio of the mass to the charge. Samples before and after treatment are identical by the chemical elements present, and that allows stating that there was no chemical reaction in the treatment technology. At the same time the mass defect of 28,09% was observed. This significant mass defect allows supposing that the low energy nuclear reaction occurred during the treatment process. The above-mentioned substance characterized by the changed stable isotope concentration ratio was used in all experiments described below. Part III For the purpose of the experiment the superdispersed powder was called REMS with followed figures to specify the number of the experiment. Each experiment was performed with new changed composition characterized by different ratio of stable isotope concentrations. The experiment objective was: under the controlled experimental conditions determine the REMS influence on the change of intensity of calibrated gamma sources under standard atmospheric pressure and temperature of 24 Сº. Equipment included: low background shielded chamber with steel, lead, cadmium and copper lined walls which allows to decrease the background radiation 25-30 times. Canberra Industries, Inc (USA) GC10021 detectors with the DSA – 1000 pulse analyser and the Genie – 2000 (version V3.2.1) software, certified to the ISO9001 standard. 10
Tested samples: calibrated sample gamma sources.
Picture â„– 4. Measurement geometry.
Experiment process: first the background radiation in the empty low background chamber was measured, and then REMS sample radiation was measured. Radioactive isotopes both in the low background chamber and REMS sample were not found at the beginning of the experiment. Further during 600 seconds per each source the sample spectrometry gamma sources were measured. The measurement lasted 600 seconds and in each case the plastic glass with REMS substance, 45 gram, density 1,78 g/cm3 was placed on the gamma source. During all measurement process REMS always was behind the source in relation to the sensor, i.e. it never shielded detector from the source.
In the first 48 experiments the intensities of calibrated gamma sources were within the limits defined by the metrological characteristics of the sources. 11
More positive results were achieved for the REMS 49 sample but still within the accuracy limits. Table № 4. Gamma source activity change. Nuclide
137
Cs 241 Am 152 Eu
Average activity (Bq) Control measurement (no REMS) 2,057 × 105 1,937 × 105 1,642 × 105
Average activity (Bq) Experiment (with REMS)
Change (Bq).
Measurement error (Bq)
2,071 × 105 1,944 × 105 1,642 × 105
+ 1400 + 700 no
3,334 × 103 5,963 × 103 1,485 × 103
After 49 tests, REMS was tested to find if it gained radioactivity. Spectrograms were analysed against 8 nuclide libraries in the range of 1-16384 channels with 2keV tolerance. The reliable detection threshold was 0.30; the level of significance for minimum detectable activity calculation was 5 %. The analysis didn’t identify credible data on the radionuclide activity; therefore the REMS samples didn’t gain any radioactivity when interacting with gamma sources. Picture № 5. Spectrogram. REMS after the series of the experiments.
Since only the caesium radionuclide demonstrated the significant activity change during the experiments, it was the only source used for the next series of experiments. The experiment geometry was similar to the described above with the only difference in the distance between the source and the detector. It equalled 135 mm for the first set of 49 experiments, and 100 mm for the set experiments from 50th to 87th. One more distinction was that the REMS was placed in the brass container shaped as a truncated cone with walls 0.3 mm thick. 12
Table № 5. Peak area measurement results.
Nuclide 137
Cs 137 Cs
Energy (keV) 661.14 661.14
Peak area
Peak are error
Experiment conditions
2.77×105 2.79×105
536.58 538.60
Control test (no REMS) Main test (with REMS)
The peak area increased for 2000 ± 537.59 in experiments. Table № 6. Activity measurement results.
Nuclide 137
Cs
Energy (keV) 661,65
137
Cs
661,65
Detection relability (%) 85,12
Activity (μCi) 5,549
Error 0,0893
85,12
5,586
0,0899
Experiment conditions Control test (no REMS) Main test (with REMS)
Main tests demonstrated that activity increased by 0,037 μCi, which equals to 1369 Bq. Picture № 6. Spectrogram comparison (left – control, right – experiment).
The activity increase by 1369 Bq was observed in the tests involved the REMS. Nuclide 137Cs was selected to calculate energy released during the experiment. The characteristics of 137Cs were the following: gamma-quantum energy 661.66 keV, yield 84.98%. The activity increased by 1369 Bq for the period of 600 seconds. Therefore, we had 1369 decays per second over the time of 600 seconds with the decay energy 661.66 keV and the yield of 84.98%. The energy released was: (1369 × 600 × 661,66 × 84,98)/100 = 4618 keV 13
The additional energy dissipated in the 5 minutes period was 4618 keV. Calculation of the additional energy dissipated over 24 hours period shows that it equals to 664992 keV. In the frame of researches of new ways to utilize nuclear energy the experiment may be considered promising and worth further investigation. The experimental data obtained allow predicting that experimental measurements will be transferred from the laboratory to the working environment of the new power installation prototype casing. With the increase of the measurement time the detected effect will be either proved or disproved. Has it been confirmed it is necessary then to find the method to amplify it and to integrate in the working arrangement the converter to yield the useful energy. Picture â„– 7. Prototype casing.
So this article describes the investigation of the potential energy sources for power installations of a new type. The researches on the installation working area have been performed. The current reactors in operation utilize high energy physics principles. The new type of power installations relates to the low energy physics. Is there any connection between them? Sachs R., an American theoretical physicist answered this question as: “The interconnection of high and low energy physics is much deeper, much more diverse, and may hide much more surprises than people used to think. Let’s investigate this connection [11]. Low energy physics researches are deeply interrelated with the investigation of the nature and universe, with the patterns in which these laws act and influence the world around us. In 2009 the Great Britain spent 187 million of British pounds for 14
such researches. The USA spent over 410 million of the US dollars in 2010. In 2014 the actual cost of the researches on new ways of nuclear energy use in Russian federation was 54.5 million roubles (which equals about 2 million of the US dollars). The quoted numbers just reflect that each side has its own priorities and expectations. As for the studies of laws of nature the following words of Goldberger M., the physicist, should be quoted: “knowing laws of nature it is possible to predict nature phenomena, and many such predicted phenomena are entirely unexpected and go beyond common life experience. Many of these unexpected phenomena lead to the outstanding technical achievements. We don’t know in advance that the basic laws to be discovered will provide such results, but it is very short-sighted to suppose otherwise. The study and the discovery of these laws are the live spring feeding our technical knowledge” [12]. Authors appreciate professional comments and advices on presentation of technical issues and on discussion of the experiments provided by Shikalov V., Doctor of Engineering Sciences, Head of the Kurchatov Institute laboratory. Authors also appreciate advices on experiment preparation provided by Yatsenko V., Candidate of Engineering Sciences, Head of the Radiometry and Spectrometry Research laboratory of the Medical and Biophysical Centre named after A. Burnazjan.
References. 1. Kedrov F. 1980. Ernest Rutherford. Emergence of Nuclear Physics. Moscow. “Knowledge”, p. 19. 2. Ibid, p. 24. 3. Higgs Peter W. 1964 г. Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Gauge Bosons. Phys. Rev. Lett. Vol. 13, p. 508. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.508 4. Nobel Prize in physics 2013 was awarded for Higgs boson. BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/russian/science/2013/10/131008_nobel_2013_physics_higgs.sh tml 5. http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.201802#fulltext 6. Dmitriev N. 1938. Nuclear Isomerism. UFN journal. Vol. XIX, Rev. 4, pp. 550 – 551. 7. Weinberg S. 1982. Proton Decay. UFN journal. Vol. 137, Rev. 1, p. 156. 8. Syrkin Ya. 1928. Transmutation of Matter into Radiant Energy. UFN journal. Vol. VIII, Rev. 6, p. 676. 9. Wilczek F. 2005. Asymptotic Freedom: from Paradoxes to Paradigms. Nobel Prize lecture in physics – 2004. UFN journal. Vol. 175, № 12, p. 1331. 10. Kedrov F. 1980. Ernest Rutherford. Emergence of Nuclear Physics. Moscow. “Knowledge”, p. 50. 15
11. Sachs R. 1965. Objectives of High Energy Physics. Nature of Matter. UFN journal. Vol. 86, Rev. 4, p. 605. 12. Oppenheimer R., Bethe H., Weisskopf V. 1965. Nature of Matter. Objectives of High Energy Physics. UFN journal, Vol. 86, Rev. 4, p. 609.
16